GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5118

Network Working Group V. Gurbani Request for Comments: 5118 Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent Category: Informational C. Boultond

                                         Ubiquity Software Corporation
                                                             R. Sparks
                                                      Estacado Systems
                                                         February 2008
    Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Torture Test Messages for
                 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)

Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Abstract

 This document provides examples of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
 test messages designed to exercise and "torture" the code of an
 IPv6-enabled SIP implementation.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

Table of Contents

 1. Overview ........................................................2
 2. Document conventions ............................................2
 3. SIP and IPv6 Network Configuration ..............................4
 4. Parser Torture Tests ............................................4
    4.1. Valid SIP Message with an IPv6 Reference ...................5
    4.2. Invalid SIP Message with an IPv6 Reference .................5
    4.3. Port Ambiguous in a SIP URI ................................6
    4.4. Port Unambiguous in a SIP URI ..............................7
    4.5. IPv6 Reference Delimiters in Via Header ....................7
    4.6. SIP Request with IPv6 Addresses in
         Session Description Protocol (SDP) Body.....................9
    4.7. Multiple IP Addresses in SIP Headers .......................9
    4.8. Multiple IP Addresses in SDP ..............................10
    4.9. IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Addresses ................................11
    4.10. IPv6 Reference Bug in RFC 3261 ABNF ......................11
 5. Security Considerations ........................................13
 6. Acknowledgments ................................................13
 7. References .....................................................13
    7.1. Normative References ......................................13
    7.2. Informative References ....................................14
 Appendix A.  Bit-Exact Archive of Each Test Message ...............15
    A.1.  Encoded Reference Messages ...............................16

1. Overview

 This document is informational, and is *not normative* on any aspect
 of SIP.
 This document contains test messages based on the current version
 (2.0) of the Session Initiation Protocol as defined in [RFC3261].
 This document is expected to be used as a companion document to the
 more general SIP torture test document [RFC4475], which does not
 include specific tests for IPv6 network identifiers.
 This document does not attempt to catalog every way to make an
 invalid message, nor does it attempt to be comprehensive in exploring
 unusual, but valid, messages.  Instead, it tries to focus on areas
 that may cause interoperability problems in IPv6 deployments.

2. Document Conventions

 This document contains many examples of SIP messages with IPv6
 network identifiers.  The appendix contains an encoded binary form
 containing the bit-exact representation of all the messages and the
 script needed to decode them into separate files.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

 The IPv6 addresses used in this document correspond to the 2001:
 DB8::/32 address prefix reserved for documentation [RFC3489].
 Likewise, the IPv4 addresses used in this document correspond to the
 192.0.2.0/24 address block as described in [RFC3330].
 Although SIP is a text-based protocol, some of these examples cannot
 be unambiguously rendered without additional markup due to the
 constraints placed on the formatting of RFCs.  This document uses the
 <allOneLine/> markup convention established in [RFC4475] to avoid
 ambiguity and meet the Internet-Draft layout requirements.  For the
 sake of completeness, the text defining this markup from Section 2.1
 of [RFC4475] is reproduced in its entirety below:
    Several of these examples contain unfolded lines longer than 72
    characters.  These are captured between <allOneLine/> tags.  The
    single unfolded line is reconstructed by directly concatenating
    all lines appearing between the tags (discarding any line feeds or
    carriage returns).  There will be no whitespace at the end of
    lines.  Any whitespace appearing at a fold-point will appear at
    the beginning of a line.
    The following represent the same string of bits:
    Header-name: first value, reallylongsecondvalue, third value
       <allOneLine>
       Header-name: first value,
        reallylongsecondvalue
       , third value
       </allOneLine>
       <allOneLine>
       Header-name: first value,
        reallylong
       second
       value,
        third value
       </allOneLine>
    Note that this is NOT SIP header-line folding, where different
    strings of bits have equivalent meaning.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

3. SIP and IPv6 Network Configuration

 System-level issues like deploying a dual-stack proxy server,
 populating DNS with A and AAAA Resource Records (RRs), zero-
 configuration discovery of outbound proxies for IPv4 and IPv6
 networks, when a dual-stack proxy should Record-Route itself, and
 media issues also play a major part in the transition to IPv6.  This
 document does not, however, address these issues.  Instead, a
 companion document [sip-trans] provides more guidance on these
 issues.

4. Parser Torture Tests

 The test messages are organized into several sections.  Some stress
 only the SIP parser and others stress both the parser and the
 application above it.  Some messages are valid and some are not.
 Each example clearly calls out what makes any invalid messages
 incorrect.
 Please refer to the complete Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) in
 [RFC3261] on representing IPv6 references in SIP messages.  IPv6
 references are delimited by a "[" and "]".  When an IPv6 reference is
 part of a SIP Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), RFC 3261 mandates
 that the "IPv6reference" production rule be used to recognize tokens
 that comprise an IPv6 reference.  More specifically, the ABNF states
 the following:
   SIP-URI        =  "sip:" [ userinfo ] hostport
                     uri-parameters [ headers ]
   hostport       =  host [ ":" port ]
   host           =  hostname / IPv4address / IPv6reference
   IPv4address    =  1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
   IPv6reference  =  "[" IPv6address "]"
   IPv6address    =  hexpart [ ":" IPv4address ]
   hexpart        =  hexseq / hexseq "::" [ hexseq ] / "::" [ hexseq ]
   hexseq         =  hex4 *( ":" hex4)
   hex4           =  1*4HEXDIG

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

4.1. Valid SIP Message with an IPv6 Reference

 The request below is well-formatted according to the grammar in
 [RFC3261].  An IPv6 reference appears in the Request-URI (R-URI), Via
 header field, and Contact header field.
 Message Details: ipv6-good
    REGISTER sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Max-Forwards: 70
    Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
    CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
    Content-Length: 0

4.2. Invalid SIP Message with an IPv6 Reference

 The request below is not well-formatted according to the grammar in
 [RFC3261].  The IPv6 reference in the R-URI does not contain the
 mandated delimiters for an IPv6 reference ("[" and "]").
 A SIP implementation receiving this request should respond with a 400
 Bad Request error.
 Message Details: ipv6-bad
    REGISTER sip:2001:db8::10 SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Max-Forwards: 70
    Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
    CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
    Content-Length: 0

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

4.3. Port Ambiguous in a SIP URI

 IPv6 uses the colon to delimit octets.  This may lead to ambiguity if
 the port number on which to contact a SIP server is inadvertently
 conflated with the IPv6 reference.  Consider the REGISTER request
 below.  The sender of the request intended to specify a port number
 (5070) to contact a server, but inadvertently, inserted the port
 number inside the closing "]" of the IPv6 reference.  Unfortunately,
 since the IPv6 address in the R-URI is compressed, the intended port
 number becomes the last octet of the reference.
 From a parsing perspective, the request below is well-formed.
 However, from a semantic point of view, it will not yield the desired
 result.  Implementations must ensure that when a raw IPv6 address
 appears in a SIP URI, then a port number, if required, appears
 outside the closing "]" delimiting the IPv6 reference.  Raw IPv6
 addresses can occur in many header fields, including the Contact,
 Route, and Record-Route header fields.  They also can appear as the
 result of the "sent-by" production rule of the Via header field.
 Implementers are urged to consult the ABNF in [RFC3261] for a
 complete list of fields where a SIP URI can appear.
 Message Details: port-ambiguous
    REGISTER sip:[2001:db8::10:5070] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
    Max-Forwards: 70
    CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
    Content-Length: 0

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

4.4. Port Unambiguous in a SIP URI

 In contrast to the example in Section 4.3, the following REGISTER
 request leaves no ambiguity whatsoever on where the IPv6 address ends
 and the port number begins.  This REGISTER request is well formatted
 per the grammar in [RFC3261].
 Message Details: port-unambiguous
    REGISTER sip:[2001:db8::10]:5070 SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
    Max-Forwards: 70
    CSeq: 98176 REGISTER
    Content-Length: 0

4.5. IPv6 Reference Delimiters in Via Header

 IPv6 references can also appear in Via header fields; more
 specifically in the "sent-by" production rule and the "via-received"
 production rule.  In the "sent-by" production rule, the sequence of
 octets comprising the IPv6 address is defined to appear as an
 "IPv6reference" non-terminal, thereby mandating the "[" and "]"
 delimiters.  However, this is not the case for the "via-received"
 non-terminal.  The "via-received" production rule is defined as
 follows:
    via-received = "received" EQUAL (IPv4address / IPv6address)
 The "IPv6address" non-terminal is defined not to include the
 delimiting "[" and "]".  This has led to the situation documented
 during the 18th SIP Interoperability Event [Email-SIPit]:
    Those testing IPv6 made different assumptions about enclosing
    literal v6 addresses in Vias in [].  By the end of the event, most
    implementations were accepting either.  Its about 50/50 on what
    gets sent.
 While it would be beneficial if the same non-terminal
 ("IPv6reference") was used for both the "sent-by" and "via-received"
 production rules, there has not been a consensus in the working group
 to that effect.  Thus, the best that can be suggested is that
 implementations must follow the Robustness Principle [RFC1122] and be
 liberal in accepting a "received" parameter with or without the

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

 delimiting "[" and "]" tokens.  When sending a request,
 implementations must not put the delimiting "[" and "]" tokens.
 The two test cases below are designed to stress this behavior.  A SIP
 implementation receiving either of these messages must parse them
 successfully.
 The request below contains an IPv6 address in the Via "received"
 parameter.  The IPv6 address is delimited by "[" and "]".  Even
 though this is not a valid request based on a strict interpretation
 of the grammar in [RFC3261], robust implementations must nonetheless
 be able to parse the topmost Via header field and continue processing
 the request.
 Message Details: via-received-param-with-delim
    BYE sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com;tag=bd76ya
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    <allOneLine>
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];received=[2001:db8::9:255];
    branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    </allOneLine>
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Max-Forwards: 70
    CSeq: 321 BYE
    Content-Length: 0
 The OPTIONS request below contains an IPv6 address in the Via
 "received" parameter without the adorning "[" and "]".  This request
 is valid according to the grammar in [RFC3261].
 Message Details: via-received-param-no-delim
    OPTIONS sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    <allOneLine>
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];received=2001:db8::9:255;
    branch=z9hG4bKas3
    </allOneLine>
    Call-ID: SSG95523997077@hlau_4100
    Max-Forwards: 70
    Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::9:1]>
    CSeq: 921 OPTIONS
    Content-Length: 0

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

4.6. SIP Request with IPv6 Addresses in Session Description Protocol

    (SDP) Body
 This request below is valid and well-formed according to the grammar
 in [RFC3261].  Note that the IPv6 addresses in the SDP [RFC4566] body
 do not have the delimiting "[" and "]".
 Message Details: ipv6-in-sdp
    INVITE sip:user@[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@[2001:db8::10]
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::20];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::20]>
    CSeq: 8612 INVITE
    Max-Forwards: 70
    Content-Type: application/sdp
    Content-Length: 268
    v=0
    o=assistant 971731711378798081 0 IN IP6 2001:db8::20
    s=Live video feed for today's meeting
    c=IN IP6 2001:db8::20
    t=3338481189 3370017201
    m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 2
    a=rtpmap:2 G726-32/8000
    m=video 6024 RTP/AVP 107
    a=rtpmap:107 H263-1998/90000

4.7. Multiple IP Addresses in SIP Headers

 The request below is valid and well-formed according to the grammar
 in [RFC3261].  The Via list contains a mix of IPv4 addresses and IPv6
 references.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

 Message Details: mult-ip-in-header
    BYE sip:user@host.example.net SIP/2.0
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1]:6050;branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.1;branch=z9hG4bKjhja8781hjuaij65144
    <allOneLine>
    Via: SIP/2.0/TCP [2001:db8::9:255];branch=z9hG4bK451jj;
    received=192.0.2.200
    </allOneLine>
    Call-ID: 997077@lau_4100
    Max-Forwards: 70
    CSeq: 89187 BYE
    To: sip:user@example.net;tag=9817--94
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    Content-Length: 0

4.8. Multiple IP Addresses in SDP

 The request below is valid and well-formed according to the grammar
 in [RFC3261].  The SDP contains multiple media lines, and each media
 line is identified by a different network connection address.
 Message Details: mult-ip-in-sdp
    INVITE sip:user@[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@[2001:db8::10]
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::9:1]>
    Max-Forwards: 70
    CSeq: 8912 INVITE
    Content-Type: application/sdp
    Content-Length: 181
    v=0
    o=bob 280744730 28977631 IN IP4 host.example.com
    s=
    t=0 0
    m=audio 22334 RTP/AVP 0
    c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
    m=video 6024 RTP/AVP 107
    c=IN IP6 2001:db8::1
    a=rtpmap:107 H263-1998/90000

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

4.9. IPv4-Mapped IPv6 Addresses

 An IPv4-mapped IPv6 address is usually represented with the last 32
 bits appearing as a dotted-decimal IPv4 address; e.g., ::ffff:
 192.0.2.1.  A SIP implementation receiving a message that contains
 such a mapped address must be prepared to parse it successfully.  An
 IPv4-mapped IPv6 address may appear in signaling, or in the SDP
 carried by the signaling message, or in both.  If a port number is
 part of the URI represented by the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, then it
 must appear outside the delimiting "]" (cf. Section 4.4).
 The message below is well-formed according to the grammar in
 [RFC3261].  The Via list contains two Via headers, both of which
 include an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address.  An IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
 also appears in the Contact header and the SDP.  The topmost Via
 header includes a port number that is appropriately delimited by "]".
 Message Details: ipv4-mapped-ipv6
    INVITE sip:user@example.com SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@example.com
    From: sip:user@east.example.com;tag=81x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [::ffff:192.0.2.10]:19823;branch=z9hG4bKbh19
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [::ffff:192.0.2.2];branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: SSG9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    Contact: "T. desk phone" <sip:ted@[::ffff:192.0.2.2]>
    CSeq: 612 INVITE
    Max-Forwards: 70
    Content-Type: application/sdp
    Content-Length: 236
    v=0
    o=assistant 971731711378798081 0 IN IP6 ::ffff:192.0.2.2
    s=Call me soon, please!
    c=IN IP6 ::ffff:192.0.2.2
    t=3338481189 3370017201
    m=audio 6000 RTP/AVP 2
    a=rtpmap:2 G726-32/8000
    m=video 6024 RTP/AVP 107
    a=rtpmap:107 H263-1998/90000

4.10. IPv6 Reference Bug in RFC 3261 ABNF

 It is possible to follow the IPv6reference production rule of RFC
 3261 ABNF -- the relevant portion of which is reproduced at the top
 of Section 4 -- and arrive at the following construct:
 [2001:db8:::192.0.2.1]

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

 Note the extra colon before the IPv4 address in the above construct.
 The correct construct, of course, is:
 [2001:db8::192.0.2.1]
 The ABNF pertaining to IPv6 references in RFC 3261 was derived from
 RFC 2373 [RFC2373], which has been obsoleted by RFC 4291 [RFC4291].
 The specific behavior of inserting an extra colon was inherited from
 RFC 2373, and has been remedied in RFC 4291.  However, following the
 Robustness Principle [RFC1122], an implementation must tolerate both
 of the above constructs.
 The message below includes an extra colon in the IPv6 reference.  A
 SIP implementation receiving such a message may exhibit robustness by
 successfully parsing the IPv6 reference (it can choose to ignore the
 extra colon when parsing the IPv6 reference.  If the SIP
 implementation is acting in the role of a proxy, it may additionally
 serialize the message without the extra colon to aid the next
 downstream server).
 Message Details: ipv6-bug-abnf-3-colons
    OPTIONS sip:user@[2001:db8:::192.0.2.1] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@[2001:db8:::192.0.2.1]
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=810x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP lab1.east.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: G9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    CSeq: 689 OPTIONS
    Max-Forwards: 70
    Content-Length: 0
 The next message has the correct syntax for the IPv6 reference in the
 R-URI.
 Message Details: ipv6-correct-abnf-2-colons
    OPTIONS sip:user@[2001:db8::192.0.2.1] SIP/2.0
    To: sip:user@[2001:db8::192.0.2.1]
    From: sip:user@example.com;tag=810x2
    Via: SIP/2.0/UDP lab1.east.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKas3-111
    Call-ID: G9559905523997077@hlau_4100
    CSeq: 689 OPTIONS
    Max-Forwards: 70
    Content-Length: 0

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

5. Security Considerations

 This document presents examples of SIP messages with IPv6 references
 contained in the signaling headers and SDP payload.  While this
 document may clarify the behavior of SIP elements processing a
 message with IPv6 references, it does not normatively change the base
 SIP [RFC3261] specification in any way.  Consequently, all security
 considerations in [RFC3261] apply.
 Parsers must carefully consider edge conditions and malicious input
 as part of their design.  Attacks on many Internet systems use
 crafted input to cause implementations to behave in undesirable ways.
 Many of the messages in this document are designed to stress a parser
 implementation at points traditionally used for such attacks.  This
 document does not, however, attempt to be comprehensive.  It contains
 some common pitfalls that the authors have discovered while parsing
 IPv6 identifiers in SIP implementations.

6. Acknowledgments

 The authors thank Jeroen van Bemmel, Dennis Bijwaard, Gonzalo
 Camarillo, Bob Gilligan, Alan Jeffrey, Larry Kollasch, Erik Nordmark,
 Kumiko Ono, Pekka Pessi, Jon Peterson, and other members of the SIP-
 related working groups for input provided during the construction of
 the document and discussion of the test cases.
 This work is being discussed on the sipping@ietf.org mailing list.
 A.B. Nataraju and A.C. Mahendran provided working group last call
 comments.
 Mohamed Boucadair and Brian Carpenter suggested new test cases for
 inclusion in the document.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [RFC1122]     Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
               Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
 [RFC3261]     Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G.,
               Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M.,
               and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol",
               RFC 3261, June 2002.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

 [RFC3330]     IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, September
               2002.
 [RFC3489]     Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R.
               Mahy, "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram
               Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators
               (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.
 [RFC4475]     Sparks, R., Ed., Hawrylyshen, A., Johnston, A.,
               Rosenberg, J., and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
               Protocol (SIP) Torture Test Messages", RFC 4475, May
               2006.
 [RFC4566]     Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP:
               Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

7.2. Informative References

 [RFC2373]     Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
               Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
 [RFC4291]     Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
               Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
 [sip-trans]   Camarillo, G., El Malki, K., and V. Gurbani, "IPv6
               Transition in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
               Work in Progress, August 2007.
 [Email-SIPit] Sparks, R., "preliminary report: SIPit 18", Electronic
               Mail archived at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/
               sip/current/msg14103.html, April 2006.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

Appendix A. Bit-Exact Archive of Each Test Message

 The following text block is an encoded, gzip compressed TAR archive
 of files that represent each of the example messages discussed in
 Section 4.
 To recover the compressed archive file intact, the text of this
 document may be passed as input to the following Perl script (the
 output should be redirected to a file or piped to "tar -xzvf -").
 #!/usr/bin/perl
 use strict;
 my $bdata = "";
 use MIME::Base64;
 while(<>) {
   if (/-- BEGIN MESSAGE ARCHIVE --/ .. /-- END MESSAGE ARCHIVE --/) {
        if ( m/^\s*[^\s]+\s*$/) {
            $bdata = $bdata . $_;
        }
   }
 }
 print decode_base64($bdata);
 Alternatively, the base-64 encoded block can be edited by hand to
 remove document structure lines and fed as input to any base-64
 decoding utility.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

A.1. Encoded Reference Messages

  1. - BEGIN MESSAGE ARCHIVE –

H4sICPujD0cAA21zZy50YXIA7Vpbc6M2GPUzv0Ldl74UWzckIHUnbXY39XS760ncz

 HQ6mY5sFBuvDRSwN+mvrwAb303c2GQ34byAjYSEpHO+i1Rv1E4OCCnkEKorRJyl1+
 R2dk1RQ6oE4RhxRNT/CCHGa8bpu1arTaJYhKrJ6ef+3nJ+PJDhnufzD8ku+LidPB3
 qDTeYUn0sgkA6urpnx28DIggZpbvmHyFOF/NPWTL/FFFcg8fvyiZe+fy3Pt60Ou9A
 5Ab2JJLhubwX42Ak6z1/DK5b7QauQ63j21sLaO9Df7z8SERxfen5WSz6TRPdY+3GF
 fb8dY0/3rbBX7Z9p2AjS/1Tx3UEb9W9iclZNxReb9D81xpc0u5v3QGyimvj27VqIi
 K60hDtQoxGeuutqn19aRmGZUHDwMSyOOT8fDASk7+pWpvahe/Fohfb4E2nDhwZfQb
 BwPfkG/Bj8m2xdM43W/xJu7iW/9iAIQyyQdR+F/f6ez/8IkInsgHP3iu9WO88BNIG
 imIjtydi1/cakRPkTz9Irx8PbIAJ07RpE2p+U0SRq9alFwOLI06UKiLCTW6Z0EQAq
 vZAq83Aep+0qJl8MBhLEPm+9wNQ8yAi+Z3Wa+6qETcJISY1ETItQAhPGIoh0sZNMX
 FcHzC1lsFVp934+aYNsCaaYRworbAxuOSY6QQ3TFVCFZ+6jkyKY5oXV5ReVFA/wK+
 YqWmxLLNhJRzRnnvtV5jpP9O7wjldGwX6DyklSv8Z5AZEmPNE/7FBWKX/JeDq3WXr
 uvPuKlVxrEbedrqmreh6uPo/TvgXbVg2eqJubxXcTMiTN8hwpuC99Mf5Utso12/LV
 GsSzIdhQ5Sh9rJlasb/vu+fTgCK+W8s+I9pyn9OKv+vDKzwf5kg8LZSgFegADP+u5
 6uXNITtVEU/0GO5/zHkKX2X7m8vOJ/CViP/x4jAatlnqwCGB4tfCvgvGppTnrziHE
 bMw+L25Y7pGK2D+5Ugix+upPSAXd+CGLfEQ/fRyqUk7Hr9RcR3ErdKnqr8ETUG+PJ
 KNbdIDEBAymcvSL3/1Dk/6l1l+s/wjDN/xECK/0vAb/8uST+A38pgefJOJf/IifOZ
 tCAO0R8o26e81urMBwMhclNNBhOhDtkBqJ0tXLnYq1hbBjrpoMaaDg8C2VPKlV1mn
 mmKzETc2syMyB7nMjMRFjI5EAN0HYHWI1Pat8S91HXLfooO/jVOZcr/D+RC1jEf85
 Zzn+MMv9PWc6K/yXgK/D/nh4FPtoBtNKwbzffc5fwMA8QmWjuAXb9LsAm5JRyAtWd
 pRY3QZnnR8GKwCYRdNRUThwEMHfZMCZk4YTBueNHF6q5213b4iSiIh+u3gj8MNbFu
 Ov2J/4kOsUaK8z/GLn9R4Rl9l+NYMX/ErA7/2MbkH8bSaCDcj47yP9ak0Az/k+8Ey
 rAIfynGKX8p8So+F8C9uR/UwGo+P/S+T91hT6Pl/RAhGKse77uyJE7PlIbhfxni/1
 fg6X7Pwzzav+nDHxqd1qfPl4/3/ZPHqqvBfabkrAuB0fdDrKWN4QwArNxefFCsJX/
 X9x4cEQFKOQ/Xth/I4v/GcMV/8vAPP93IPdTgncdzh7EkWWgKMH35A3ilOJEUTzJ7
 L10ehdifv5r0tdF17vTid7zR7531CigmP/Z+W/MGUvPfSUygKvzX2Vg2f6vJ/cWp3
 OLE4FLZYsFAW5ThJHoovrGEeIC8u8NC7LzuaaVG/OdG70L+j/3fJSNGf97fqgUOM4
 0AB9ZAwr5j1jOf+UFpPZfSUDF/xKwj/8H0L9if4UKFSp8Y/gPJmWg1AA6AAA=
 -- END MESSAGE ARCHIVE --

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

Authors' Addresses

 Vijay K. Gurbani
 Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
 2701 Lucent Lane
 Rm 9F-546
 Lisle, IL  60532
 USA
 Phone: +1 630 224 0216
 EMail: vkg@alcatel-lucent.com
 Chris Boulton
 Ubiquity Software Corporation
 Building 3
 West Fawr Lane
 St Mellons
 Cardiff, South Wales  CF3 5EA
 EMail: cboulton@ubiquitysoftware.com
 Robert J. Sparks
 Estacado Systems
 EMail: RjS@estacado.net

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 5118 SIP IPv6 Torture Tests February 2008

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Gurbani, et al. Informational [Page 18]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5118.txt · Last modified: 2008/02/08 01:13 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki